Talk:Better Out Than In/GA1

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ТимофейЛееСуда (talk · contribs) 21:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will be taking on this review. Be aware that I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about graffiti or Banksy in the least (although a sampling of his work looks very interesting), so I may have a few questions about those two throughout my review. I will be doing my overall review and then a (hopefully short) prose review. I expect to have my first read-through and review finished in a few hours. Please let me know if you have any questions. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: As this GA nomination has been requested since mid-November 2013, I am more than happy to allow as much time as possible for any changes or questions this review requires to be completed. Thanks. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Woot! Thanks for taking it up ТимофейЛееСуда :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Minor issues, see below prose review.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Lead is awfully short and does not provide a complete stand-alone overview of the article per MOS:LEAD
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Only 1-2 major editors, stable history.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
My only image related concern is that IMHO only two images are in logical places (Ronald McDonald & Ghetto 4 Life). The other images should (IMHO) be near the text that discusses them. Also the image of the 24th installment is in an appropriate place, but that artwork is not discussed in the article.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Almost there. See Prose review below. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review[edit]

Lead[edit]

Per MOS:LEAD the lead should be a standalone overview of the entire article. Currently the lead is only two sentences and only covers the background section and touches on the works section. Minimally the lead should coverage of more of the works section, the defacement section and the response section.
Working on it! :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a stab at improving the lead. Let me know if you think it needs some tweaking. — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

The first sentence says October twice. I do not think it needs the second time,and should instead end in "entire month."
Done. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the third paragraph, The Village Voice should be italicized.
Done. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Works[edit]

In the first paragraph, be sure that all of the punctuation is inside of the quotations (ie before the quotation marks. There are currently three places in that paragraph that have issues.
I agree that it seems odd to have punctuation outside the quotations, however MOS:LQ states it should match that of the quote exactly. Seems trivial to me... but if you think they should still go in the quotes that's no problem! :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the third paragraph you state On 6 October... Throughout the rest of the article you switch back and forth between D MMMM YYYY and MMMM D YYYY. You might use MMMM D YYYY since that is the US standard and the article is about US work. I personally do not care for this article and either will pass as long as the entire article is standard in its use per MOS:DATE.

In retrospect the only time that you do not use the same format is in the first sentence of the background section, so maybe just change that one. Your choice.

The subject of the article takes place in the US however the artist is English, so format could probably go either way. In light of wording 9/11 as "September 11" I went with the US convention. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the third paragraph, last sentence, ...Banksy posted a video featuring the Walt Disney character Dumbo being shot down Syrian rebels, the meaning behind which puzzled many. I believe that you are missing the word "by" between "shot down" and Syrian rebels."
Yep! Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in MOS:IMAGES that says that photos have to be right next to the content that discusses them, and so I will not fail this nomination because of my opinion. I do want to make you aware that as a reader without familiarity with the subject, it is odd as encyclopedias always have the image with the relevant content.
I will try to move them around to have more sensible locations. I went off of MOS:IMAGELOCATION which notes multiple images can be "staggered right-and-left". It's more for presentation purposes so things don't look cluttered... so it's hard to decide what looks good yet also correctly flows with the text. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

Second paragraph, you say ...for families of 9/11 victims... Our article for 9/11 Victims redirects to Casualties of the September 11 attacks and the main article about 9/11 is September 11 attacks, so I would change this to say "September 11 victims" or "September 11 attacks victims."
Reworded and wikilinked. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This concludes my first read-through review. If you will address these points (or at least answer my questions), I will do a final read-through & review (if necessary) and then I will be more than happy to pass this article to GA status. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the article an few more times and everything looks great. This is a very polished article and I am happy to promote this to GA status! -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.